3. H. HOSKING.

13

I.—3b.

ever, was not accepted by the Natives who petitioned Parliament in 1872. This petition was referred to a Select Committee, who reported as follows : ' That the evidence taken by the Committee in reference to the claim of the Natives of the Middle Island, though far from complete, leads them to the conclusion that these claims have not hitherto had that consideration which they deserve.' " Then he goes on to speak of further acts, and he says,— "It is submitted, however, that although this may have been the view of the matter in 1868, subsequent inquiry tended to show that the claim preferred by the Natives had not received the consideration it deserved —in fact, that the question was not properly understood at the time owing to the fragmentar}' information obtainable, and that it was not until after the publication of a compendium of all the important documents on South Island Native affairs in 1871 that a clearer insight into the merits of the case could be had." Then, at page 6 of the same report Mr. Mackay points out that the additional land which was awarded by the Native Land Court in 1868 was of an inferior character. I wish, with respect, to insist strongly upon this contention : that the proceedings in the Court of 1868 ought not to be taken as a satisfaction of the claims on the Crown, because if we once get rid of the view that that was a satisfaction of these claims, then we have a perfectly open course before us, and all we have then to ask is, when were these claims discharged? Because, if the Court in 1868 did not discharge the claims, then it is as clear as noonday that no satisfaction of the claims has been made, except in so far as the matter may be affected by the Landless Natives Act of 1906. The way is perfectly open, then, "when once the true inwardness of the proceedings with reference to 1868 is appreciated, for a finding by this Committee that the claims have in no way been satisfied, except to the extent of the small area then added to the original area reserved, and in so far as the Act of 1906 may have done so. Now I will refer briefly to the subsequent proceedings that have taken place before Parliament, in order of date. I have had a list prepared of all references, so that they would be before the Committee at a glance. I have sent it to be typed, but so far it has not arrived. [Subsequently the lists were received, and distributed amongst members of the Committee.] The first matter I wish to refer to is the evidence taken before the Committee in 1872. The GJvairman: What Committee was that? Mr. Hosking: A Committee on Middle Island Native Affairs, appointed by the House. The reference is, Appendices for 1872, H.-9, pages 3 and 4, and 6 and 7. The evidence of Mr. Taiaroa was taken down there, giving some circumstances connected with the Court of 1868. He says,— " I will now refer to the action of the Native Land Court which held its first sitting at Christchurch. Kaitorete was the piece of land brought before the Court, it being portion of block purchased by Mr. Kemp." (It was to settle a dispute in connection with that particular block that the Court went down there.) " Kemp's deed was produced before the Court; counsel appeared on behalf of the Natives and objected to deed as being bad; and if Maoris were as wise as the Europeans they would have regained all the land in question. Mr. Hall then signed document to make the deed of Mr. Kemp good, which the Maoris did not understand he had a right to do. Ultimately the Court awarded to the Natives certain small reserves, of about 1,000 acres altogether. I am not quite certain as to the acreage. The greater part of the cultivations were left out by the Court." Mr. Mantell gave evidence before that Committee. He says there, after referring to the original instructions, — " In the year 1848 my official connection with the Ngaitahu commenced; but before then I knew Tuhawaiki, the leading chief, who took an active part in the sale, and he himself told me that he considered that the Natives were entitled to these tenth parts. He was drowned before my official duties in that district commenced. The old chiefs Taiaroa and Karetai in fact, all of the older chiefs—when I eventually went down as Commissioner of Crown Lands for the Southern District of New Munster in the year 1851, repeatedly asked me about these reserves, and when they were going to be settled or selected; but I knew nothing at that time of the documentary evidence to which I have referred, nor had heard of it, save the conversation alluded to, and therefore laughed at the idea, which I thought they had acquired from intercourse with the Northern tribes. I may add that their pertinacity was very strong on the subject; but at the time I did not feel justified in raising the question officially, inasmuch as during the earlier part of my administration of Crown lands the Otago Association Block was exempt from my control; afterwards my work became so very excessive—lasting frequently from 4 a.m. till 10 p.m.—that I had no opportunity of so doing. In making these purchases it was clearly intended that nominally one-tenth, but virtually one-eleventh, was to be reserved for the Natives. I may here inform the Committee that, before going Home on leave of absence, so large a quantity of land was unselected that one-tenth might have been taken without the slightest interruption to purchasers. During my term of office I did not believe these claims were well founded, notwithstanding that the Natives never ceased to press them. It was from subsequent acquaintance with documents and other sources of information, which, though at the time existing, I in my official capacity was not aware of, but which I afterwards obtained, that I gathered the information which caused me to change my opinion. Had Tuhawaiki lived, I believe the claims would have been satisfied, as, being a chief of considerable discernment, he would have been able to bring the claims properly under the notice of the Government.'